Consider this, human women cannot evolve, well more accurately they cannot actively contribute to the selection process since the DNA for their children was created before the woman was born, meaning that the DNA within cannot be affected via environmental selection.

Scientific Fact No. 4 – Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is WrongThe evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Now the real kicker would be is this the same for animals? I have no idea where to find this info...

Furthermore another question why would such a thing be selected for if it works against the evolutionary process. Its all well and good to say "it evolved".... somehow... But according to the evolutionary paradigm there must be selection pressures for such.

I meant as in selection pressures, acting on random variation. If the woman's eggs DNA is predetermined before she is even born then selection plays no role in the DNA within those eggs. Perhaps the selection is garnered with the grand parents.

I meant as in selection pressures, acting on random variation. If the woman's eggs DNA is predetermined before she is even born then selection plays no role in the DNA within those eggs. Perhaps the selection is garnered with the grand parents.

Right. The only thing that matters to evolutionists is that there is variation. It matters not when it arose.

I meant as in selection pressures, acting on random variation. If the woman's eggs DNA is predetermined before she is even born then selection plays no role in the DNA within those eggs. Perhaps the selection is garnered with the grand parents.

Environmental adaptation occurs by altering amino acids in a protein chain. This is observed and documented; Yet, there is not a single example of a new randomly formed gene in all of biology that has played any part in an advantageous way.

Honestly, selection is only observed to eliminate individuals, which can only reduce variation within a population.

Chromosomes are just the shape DNA is packed into at the time of meiosis. The DNA itself can be different, and indeed is otherwise everyone who had the usual human 46 chromosomes (i.e. most every human) would be identical.

Mutations in the DNA occur when the DNA is replicated. DNA gets replicated or shuffled around every time a cell undergoes mitosis or meiosis. The cells that will lead to the germ line undergo mitosis quite a few times during embryological development and undergo meiosis once, whether that one time is during embryological development or at 50 years old. When a baby girl is born with a million oocytes already in her ovaries, those oocytes are just as different from one another as the spermatocytes of an adult male are.

If they weren't, if the only variability was in having an X or Y chromosome, then everybody would be identical to their siblings of the same gender.

Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain.

No. The author might be confusing the theory of evolution with Lamarck or Lysenko's theories. While there are always people poking holes in the principle that genotype affects phenotype but not vice-versa - with epigenetics for example - what is clear is that the environment's influence on genetic mutations isn't a significant factor in evolution. And where the environment does influence genetic material, what it does is increase the overall rate of mutations. It doesn't affect which mutations happen.

Mutations in the DNA occur when the DNA is replicated. DNA gets replicated or shuffled around every time a cell undergoes mitosis or meiosis. The cells that will lead to the germ line undergo mitosis quite a few times during embryological development and undergo meiosis once, whether that one time is during embryological development or at 50 years old. When a baby girl is born with a million oocytes already in her ovaries, those oocytes are just as different from one another as the spermatocytes of an adult male are.

Not sure of the point you are making here. Obviously in the case of women, meiosis doesn't take place at 50--it's while they're in the womb.

NOTE: The eggs will be varied, but they will still use the material provided from the 23 and 23 chromosomes from the mother and father. It's fundamental Mendellian probability (this is not a statement on dominance/recessiveness) that figures the outcome of each trait, but there is no science that would give support for the rise of new bio-machinery from this process. Only variation within baraminic parameters.

If they weren't, if the only variability was in having an X or Y chromosome, then everybody would be identical to their siblings of the same gender.

The fact of x and y was not elaborated on in the OP. It seems a bit disconnected from the main point in the 'scientific fact' part. I don't see this as a contridiction of the main point though.

No. The author might be confusing the theory of evolution with Lamarck or Lysenko's theories. While there are always people poking holes in the principle that genotype affects phenotype but not vice-versa - with epigenetics for example - what is clear is that the environment's influence on genetic mutations isn't a significant factor in evolution. And where the environment does influence genetic material, what it does is increase the overall rate of mutations. It doesn't affect which mutations happen.

The OP does not connect the environment with mutation, but rather natural selection. I think it's a fundamentally understood fact that the environment plays a part in natural selection. This is not LaMarckism.

I see the arguement as solid. The eggs, once generated, can not be affected by selective pressure in the environment (barring pathogens or poisons). However, the adult woman/female who has the eggs, will be subject to the selective process.

Not sure of the point you are making here. Obviously in the case of women, (and I was not aware of this before), meiosis doesn't place at 50--it's in the womb. It would still be happening with men though.

The point is that it happens to both in the same way, the only difference is in timing. (meiosis happens continually in men, but only once per sperm cell)

The fact of x and y was not elaborated on in the OP. It seems a bit disconnected from the main point in the 'scientific fact' part.

Honestly I had trouble understanding what kind of point the OP was making about chromosomes in the first place, so if you think my response isn't correctly addressing what the OP says that would be why. Maybe if you can explain what argument you think the OP was making I can respond better.

The OP does not connect mutation with the environment, but rather natural selection. I think it's a fundamentally understood fact that the environment plays a part in natural selection. This is not LaMarckism.

But the moment at which the eggs are created is completely irrelevant to natural selection. An adult woman has the same genes she had when she was a fertilized zygote (mostly*). If she's well-adapted and survives and reproduces a lot, her genes will pass on to the next generation through her eggs. If she isn't and doesn't, they won't. Given her genes are the same at every point, at what time her eggs are created is completely irrelevant. It would only be relevant if the adult woman's environment affected the genes in her eggs, but it doesn't*. Same thing with a man : the sperm he created as a teenager and the sperm he creates as a mature adult are genetically the same (again, mostly*). The selective pressure of the environment acts on him, not his sperm. If he dies or doesn't reproduce he won't pass on his genes through his sperm; if he doesn't he will. The moment at which his sperm was created doesn't matter.

*(age and the environment CAN affect sperm and eggs, but mostly by increasing or decreasing their overall number or mutation rate, not by changing them in an evolutionarily significant way)

I see the arguement as solid. The eggs, once generated, can not be affected by selective pressure in the environment(barring pathogens or poisons).

Yes they can. They can die. They can fail to be fertilized. They can be fertilized and develop into an organism that can die or reproduce more or less, depending on the environment it's in. All of those factors will affect whether the egg's genes end up in the next generation of eggs.

NOTE: The eggs will be varied, but they will still use the material provided from the 23 and 23 chromosomes from the mother and father. It's fundamental Mendellian probability (this is not a statement on dominance/recessiveness) that figures the outcome of each trait, but there is no science that would give support for the rise of new bio-machinery from this process. Only variation within baraminic parameters.

The variation comes from the way every time DNA replicates there is a small chance of mutations, so overall every human individual has something like 100-200 mutations in their DNA their parents didn't have. I understand creationists don't think these mutations can add up and lead to new structures, but that is a general creationist objection that isn't specific to women or X and Y chromosomes so I don't see what it has to do with what the OP is saying.

The point is that it happens to both in the same way, the only difference is in timing. (meiosis happens continually in men, but only once per sperm cell)

Honestly I had trouble understanding what kind of point the OP was making about chromosomes in the first place, so if you think my response isn't correctly addressing what the OP says that would be why. Maybe if you can explain what argument you think the OP was making I can respond better.

But the moment at which the eggs are created is completely irrelevant to natural selection. An adult woman has the same genes she had when she was a fertilized zygote (mostly*). If she's well-adapted and survives and reproduces a lot, her genes will pass on to the next generation through her eggs. If she isn't and doesn't, they won't. Given her genes are the same at every point, at what time her eggs are created is completely irrelevant. It would only be relevant if the adult woman's environment affected the genes in her eggs, but it doesn't*. Same thing with a man : the sperm he created as a teenager and the sperm he creates as a mature adult are genetically the same (again, mostly*). The selective pressure of the environment acts on him, not his sperm. If he dies or doesn't reproduce he won't pass on his genes through his sperm; if he doesn't he will. The moment at which his sperm was created doesn't matter.

*(age and the environment CAN affect sperm and eggs, but mostly by increasing or decreasing their overall number or mutation rate, not by changing them in an evolutionarily significant way)

Yes they can. They can die. They can fail to be fertilized. They can be fertilized and develop into an organism that can die or reproduce more or less, depending on the environment it's in. All of those factors will affect whether the egg's genes end up in the next generation of eggs.

The point is that it happens to both in the same way, the only difference is in timing. (meiosis happens continually in men, but only once per sperm cell)

Honestly I had trouble understanding what kind of point the OP was making about chromosomes in the first place, so if you think my response isn't correctly addressing what the OP says that would be why. Maybe if you can explain what argument you think the OP was making I can respond better.

But the moment at which the eggs are created is completely irrelevant to natural selection. An adult woman has the same genes she had when she was a fertilized zygote (mostly*). If she's well-adapted and survives and reproduces a lot, her genes will pass on to the next generation through her eggs. If she isn't and doesn't, they won't. Given her genes are the same at every point, at what time her eggs are created is completely irrelevant. It would only be relevant if the adult woman's environment affected the genes in her eggs, but it doesn't*. Same thing with a man : the sperm he created as a teenager and the sperm he creates as a mature adult are genetically the same (again, mostly*). The selective pressure of the environment acts on him, not his sperm. If he dies or doesn't reproduce he won't pass on his genes through his sperm; if he doesn't he will. The moment at which his sperm was created doesn't matter.

*(age and the environment CAN affect sperm and eggs, but mostly by increasing or decreasing their overall number or mutation rate, not by changing them in an evolutionarily significant way)

Yes they can. They can die. They can fail to be fertilized. They can be fertilized and develop into an organism that can die or reproduce more or less, depending on the environment it's in. All of those factors will affect whether the egg's genes end up in the next generation of eggs.

Firstly how do you KNOW that the mutation rate is changed. Do you have evidence of this or is it mere supposition.

As you said it doesn't change them in any evolutionary significant way, which is the entire point.

Firstly how do you KNOW that the mutation rate is changed. Do you have evidence of this or is it mere supposition.

It is a well-known fact of genetics that radiation increases the rate of mutation in DNA. So can chemicals like mustard gas. The Wikipedia page for "Mutagens" has tons of links to relevant scientific papers if you're interested. Biologists found out about this doing experiments on fruit flies, in vitro cells, looking at the DNA of the people who live around Chernobyl, etc.

As you said it doesn't change them in any evolutionary significant way, which is the entire point.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Is the point to agree with standard evolutionary theory ?

The point is that it happens to both in the same way, the only difference is in timing. (meiosis happens continually in men, but only once per sperm cell)

The point of the OP is that if MACRO evolutionary dogma is true, then there must be a facilitation of (i.e. mechanism) of it. It is taught that selection happens in part per environmental changes, and it is said that adaptation within what we see now, multiplied by time, implies that macro evolution happened in the past. The OP is bringing out a hidden point by bringing evoultionary dogma to a universal extreme. THe hidden point is that the genes that are in the womb are already set and varied, but the source is ONLY the parents. Although it does not enter into this subject, it a foregone conclusion. Because if macroevolutionary dogma is true, then there must be a place of observable mechanism, rather than general implication. But by showing that the genes are preset, even in a myriad variation, there is REALLY no pinpointing of when and where this mechanism of mutation and selection effectively drives evolution beyond what is observed today.

If the mother dies before reproduction, then her eggs die with her. But she has sisters, cousins, etc. that carry the genes of former generations forward. These genes are preset, just like you confirm, no matter what the timing. They are not a mish mash of random amino acids, but even as data on conserved domains shows, the genes are functionally set, and can not be too altered, lest they be non functional.

And ,ost of those genes that are not benefcial for the current environment may be turned off, but may turn on again, reverting in phenotype, in another environment.

But the moment at which the eggs are created is completely irrelevant to natural selection. An adult woman has the same genes she had when she was a fertilized zygote (mostly*). If she's well-adapted and survives and reproduces a lot, her genes will pass on to the next generation through her eggs. If she isn't and doesn't, they won't. Given her genes are the same at every point, at what time her eggs are created is completely irrelevant. It would only be relevant if the adult woman's environment affected the genes in her eggs, but it doesn't*. Same thing with a man : the sperm he created as a teenager and the sperm he creates as a mature adult are genetically the same (again, mostly*). The selective pressure of the environment acts on him, not his sperm. If he dies or doesn't reproduce he won't pass on his genes through his sperm; if he doesn't he will. The moment at which his sperm was created doesn't matter.

I'm looking at it as a rhetorical arguement, taking the so-called process to a logical end. There is no observed mechanism or law, by which an organism becomes a completely different organism. It is only an assertion that time x mutation x selection work together to drive this process. You can use math, allelle frequencies, common domains (conservation) among species, observation of artificial selection, and speciation all you want, and you presently observe only micro evolution.

You have argued well that the timing is the only difference. In both circumstances of the male and female meiosis produces variation, and I argue that that variation is preset from limited genetic material. Both the father and the mother contribute the same gene (and their redundant copies) on each side--an allele of that gene, but nonetheless a gene. The OP is simply bringing attention to the fact that evolutionists have not pinpointed any specific mechanism of macro evolution, and that natural selection does not drive a change to the extent that the dogmatists say. It shows that the process of meiosis is preset, and that selection can not intrude into IT.

So you have correctly argued that allele frequency as a result of general selection (and this can be broken into different factors) and so-called 'drift' (which is also idealistic, rather than effectively a driver of evolution) is the nuts and bolts mechanism of selection. But, as I pointed out, most data shows it is hard to 'stamp out' a gene. Traits can revert. And large changes are non-existant in literature.

*(age and the environment CAN affect sperm and eggs, but mostly by increasing or decreasing their overall number or mutation rate, not by changing them in an evolutionarily significant way)

So where IS the location of THAT which changes things in an 'evolutionarily siginificant way.' According to this online course, meiosis IS a mechanism of biological evolution, but at the same time it is a mechanism that provides the 'integrity of the DNA.' So which is it? Evolutionists want to insert the general terminology 'evolution' into everything. But you can't justifiably equate 'evolution' to the very controlled process of meiois, especially when there is an acknowledgement of integrated control in the process.

Recombination provides a mechanism for genetic variability and is a mechanism of biological evolution. Recombination between homologous chromosomes in meiosis I involves the formation and repair of double strand breaks (DSBs), and meiosis I employs the same enzymes as does DSB repair. Many biologists consider the main function of S@xual reproduction is to provide this mechanism for maintaining the integrity of the genome.http://mechanismsevo...11/meiosis.html

Yes they can. They can die. They can fail to be fertilized. They can be fertilized and develop into an organism that can die or reproduce more or less, depending on the environment it's in. All of those factors will affect whether the egg's genes end up in the next generation of eggs.

Again, cousins, aunts, grandparents, siblings all have the same or similar alleles. And only observation over time can detemine what genes are extant, and what genes are not expressing enough to show up phenotypically.

It is a well-known fact of genetics that radiation increases the rate of mutation in DNA. So can chemicals like mustard gas. The Wikipedia page for "Mutagens" has tons of links to relevant scientific papers if you're interested. Biologists found out about this doing experiments on fruit flies, in vitro cells, looking at the DNA of the people who live around Chernobyl, etc.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Is the point to agree with standard evolutionary theory ?

So you are saying that pregnant women regularly expose themselves to radiation and mustard gas......... Really?

No just pointing out that there can be no environmental selection on the female DNA given to any human child since it was already predetermined when their grandma was pregnant.

So you are saying that pregnant women regularly expose themselves to radiation and mustard gas......... Really?

Of course not. Environmental factors can increase the mutation rate from its base level, but that base level isn't zero. A too-high mutation rate isn't good anyway; small changes are fine, large changes are usually lethal or grossly non-adaptive. That's why radiation and mutagenic chemicals are bad for you. And usually carcinogenic. Some bacteria have been observed to increase their mutation rate in response to stress, but most organisms we're familiar with have a constant, low mutation rate and don't respond well to radiation or toxins that increase it. (of course when I say "low" - we're still talking about something on the order of a hundred mutations per person here)

No just pointing out that there can be no environmental selection on the female DNA given to any human child since it was already predetermined when their grandma was pregnant.

Selection acts on the phenotype, not the genotype. There is no environmental selection on the female DNA or the male DNA (so I'm still not seeing what the deal is with singling out females here); there is environmental selection on females and males. And that's selection; the females and males aren't modified by the environment, not in a heritable way. What the environment does is determine which females and males will pass on their genes (the same ones they've had since before they were born) to the next generation.

1. Of course not. Environmental factors can increase the mutation rate from its base level, but that base level isn't zero. A too-high mutation rate isn't good anyway; small changes are fine, large changes are usually lethal or grossly non-adaptive. That's why radiation and mutagenic chemicals are bad for you. And usually carcinogenic. Some bacteria have been observed to increase their mutation rate in response to stress, but most organisms we're familiar with have a constant, low mutation rate and don't respond well to radiation or toxins that increase it. (of course when I say "low" - we're still talking about something on the order of a hundred mutations per person here)

2. Selection acts on the phenotype, not the genotype. There is no environmental selection on the female DNA or the male DNA (so I'm still not seeing what the deal is with singling out females here); there is environmental selection on females and males. And that's selection; the females and males aren't modified by the environment, not in a heritable way. What the environment does is determine which females and males will pass on their genes (the same ones they've had since before they were born) to the next generation.

1. You are confusing the issue.... and yourself.

This thread has been about that there is no selection occurring on the female side of inheritance since the DNA is already predetermined. Yet you've been raving about radiation and mustard gas etc. This was why I asked you if you are implying that pregnant women are exposed to these things regularly since otherwise they are entirely irrelevant. Yes environmental factors do cause change, however that is not the issue here. Consider that the changes, you explain, come from phenotype means that the OP is correct since when the DNA is predetermined there is no phenotype with which to cause selection on... Hence there is no environmental pressures on the female side of inheritance since it is already predetermined.. This in itself invalidates you're entire paragraph here, ironically the crux for it comes from your next paragraph... another occurrence of contradiction

2. Really, well considering that DNA is the mode of inheritance then by your logic all the changes of evolution will never be inherited to the ext generation... Yes selection works on phenotypic traits.... which are expressed within DNA.

Yes it does select which individuals mate, so this can more be surmised as evidence against Lamarkism, of which Dawkins attempts to refer to for his explanation of bombadier beetles and the flat head fish. However it would also put a generation gap on the selection of beneficial traits in order for a trait to express its fitness value genetically. This gives opportunity for genetic drift to eliminate the trait altogether... Considering that the trait is claimed to derive from "random mutation", therefore will be one of a kind. Singularly expressed traits in a large population have a tiny fraction of 1% of survivng.. Beneficial or not.. (due to the random nature of mating and everything associated with it). In a small population there is a slightly larger chance, however a population that small would have inbreeding issues, leading an overall general decrease in fitness anyway.

Yet what really has me puzzled is that it seems that evolutionists prefer to live in a "perfect reality" whereby 100% of the preferable traits will be expressed 100% of the time in 100% of the offspring. Considering that random assortment would ensure that this never occurs and that random mating also adds to the mix, (not including arbitrary selection of which folicle grows to become the egg), means that fixation of a trait will never be 100%, there will always be throwbacks. Now considering if evolution were true then we should have throwbacks which demonstrate ancient traits or traits that were believed to be from the ancestor... ie- have we seen a reptile normally without gills born with gills? This is what would be predicted.

Are you sure you don't want to retract that? I mean evolution evidently did change the genotype, and it was driven by natural selection. So to say it only affects phenotype contradicts evolutionary dogma.

Are you sure you don't want to retract that? I mean evolution evidently did change the genotype, and it was driven by natural selction. So to say it only affects phenotype contradicts evolutionary dogma.

I said selection doesn't act on the genotype, not evolution. "Evolution" isn't just natural selection. Mutations and crossover change the genotype; natural selection changes the frequency of genes in the population, but it doesn't change a single individual's genotype.

When biologists say that natural selection acts on the phenotype, not the genotype, they mean that whether an organism reproduces or not depends on its traits. How sharp its eyes are, how strong its legs, how good its immune system, etc. That is what natural selection "sees". The genes themselves are selected only insofar as they influence the phenotype; those that don't are subject to neutral drift, not natural selection.

To take an example, animals need vitamin C to survive. The L-gulonolactone oxidase gene contributes to making vitamin C. Thus in most animals that gene is selected for. But what really matters isn't whether you have the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene, it's whether you get enough vitamin C. If you have the gene but don't have enough vitamin C, maybe because another gene in the cascade is broken, or because you have some unrelated process that destroys vitamin C in your body, you'll catch scurvy and die just as surely as if you hadn't had the gene in the first place. Conversely if you can get vitamin C in some other way than with the gene (say, by eating lots of fruit), then having the gene doesn't matter and it won't be subject to natural selection.

I said selection doesn't act on the genotype, not evolution. "Evolution" isn't just natural selection. Mutations and crossover change the genotype; natural selection changes the frequency of genes in the population, but it doesn't change a single individual's genotype.

When biologists say that natural selection acts on the phenotype, not the genotype, they mean that whether an organism reproduces or not depends on its traits. How sharp its eyes are, how strong its legs, how good its immune system, etc. That is what natural selection "sees". The genes themselves are selected only insofar as they influence the phenotype; those that don't are subject to neutral drift, not natural selection.

To take an example, animals need vitamin C to survive. The L-gulonolactone oxidase gene contributes to making vitamin C. Thus in most animals that gene is selected for. But what really matters isn't whether you have the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene, it's whether you get enough vitamin C. If you have the gene but don't have enough vitamin C, maybe because another gene in the cascade is broken, or because you have some unrelated process that destroys vitamin C in your body, you'll catch scurvy and die just as surely as if you hadn't had the gene in the first place. Conversely if you can get vitamin C in some other way than with the gene (say, by eating lots of fruit), then having the gene doesn't matter and it won't be subject to natural selection.

I said selection doesn't act on the genotype, not evolution. "Evolution" isn't just natural selection. Mutations and crossover change the genotype; natural selection changes the frequency of genes in the population, but it doesn't change a single individual's genotype.

When biologists say that natural selection acts on the phenotype, not the genotype, they mean that whether an organism reproduces or not depends on its traits. How sharp its eyes are, how strong its legs, how good its immune system, etc. That is what natural selection "sees". The genes themselves are selected only insofar as they influence the phenotype; those that don't are subject to neutral drift, not natural selection.

To take an example, animals need vitamin C to survive. The L-gulonolactone oxidase gene contributes to making vitamin C. Thus in most animals that gene is selected for. But what really matters isn't whether you have the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene, it's whether you get enough vitamin C. If you have the gene but don't have enough vitamin C, maybe because another gene in the cascade is broken, or because you have some unrelated process that destroys vitamin C in your body, you'll catch scurvy and die just as surely as if you hadn't had the gene in the first place. Conversely if you can get vitamin C in some other way than with the gene (say, by eating lots of fruit), then having the gene doesn't matter and it won't be subject to natural selection.

No you said "selection acts on phenotype not the genotype"

Yet the phenotype is derived from the genotype as its mode of inheritance, as I stated before using your logic nothing pertaining to evolution would ever get passed on.

I said selection doesn't act on the genotype, not evolution. "Evolution" isn't just natural selection. Mutations and crossover change the genotype; natural selection changes the frequency of genes in the population, but it doesn't change a single individual's genotype.

When biologists say that natural selection acts on the phenotype, not the genotype, they mean that whether an organism reproduces or not depends on its traits. How sharp its eyes are, how strong its legs, how good its immune system, etc. That is what natural selection "sees". The genes themselves are selected only insofar as they influence the phenotype; those that don't are subject to neutral drift, not natural selection.

To take an example, animals need vitamin C to survive. The L-gulonolactone oxidase gene contributes to making vitamin C. Thus in most animals that gene is selected for. But what really matters isn't whether you have the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene, it's whether you get enough vitamin C. If you have the gene but don't have enough vitamin C, maybe because another gene in the cascade is broken, or because you have some unrelated process that destroys vitamin C in your body, you'll catch scurvy and die just as surely as if you hadn't had the gene in the first place. Conversely if you can get vitamin C in some other way than with the gene (say, by eating lots of fruit), then having the gene doesn't matter and it won't be subject to natural selection.

The gene won't matter unless it had a pleitropic function. But I understand what you meant now. I guess one could still take issue with the statement, insofar as if a species is extant, selection has removed both the phenotype and genotype. But you've done a good job clarifying. As long as there is understanding on the point, it's no use splitting hairs.

But I understand what you meant now. I guess one could still take issue with the statement, insofar as if a species is extant, selection has removed both the phenotype and genotype. But you've done a good job clarifying. As long as there is understanding on the point, it's no use splitting hairs.

Thank you. At this point I don't think I have anything left to add to this discussion anyway ^^

Consider this, human women cannot evolve, well more accurately they cannot actively contribute to the selection process since the DNA for their children was created before the woman was born, meaning that the DNA within cannot be affected via environmental selection. Scientific Fact No. 4 – Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons. http://conservativep...e/#.T75RvVK2SSo Now the real kicker would be is this the same for animals? I have no idea where to find this info... Furthermore another question why would such a thing be selected for if it works against the evolutionary process. Its all well and good to say "it evolved".... somehow... But according to the evolutionary paradigm there must be selection pressures for such.

Actually this whole issue was well covered in Sir Ronald Fisher's 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection . Its typical of Conservapedia that they don't mention Fishers book, or bother to respond to his research but just make the outrageous claim that the subject has been ignored. For many evolutionary scientists, Fishers book is considered second in importance only to Darwin's Origin of The Species.There are many examples of evolution and natural selection on the exclusively female DNA in the X chromosomes and the mitochondria. One example is the development of malaria resistance in mitochondria - see http://en.wikipedia....ance_to_malaria